LAWS(HPH)-1981-12-2

JAGDISH CHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT

Decided On December 29, 1981
JAGDISH CHAND Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution praying for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order for the quashing of the order found at annexure E whereby the services of the petitioner had been terminated by way of acceptance of his resignation and also for an order directing respondent No. 1 to pay the dues to 9 high the petitioner is legally entitled.

(2.) The facts in so far as they are material for the disposal of this writ petition are not in dispute and may be briefly narrated. The petitioner was holding the post of Store Verifier in the Himachal Government Transport Daptt. in a substantive capacity. He was on tour at Mandi in the course of his official duties, when he was taken seriously ill on 27 -1 -1972. He had to proceed to his native village on account of his illness and an intimation to that effect was conveyed by him to his Department. His illness prolonged and he was in a position to resume his duty only on 8 -9 -1972. When he reported for duty on 8 -9 -1972 he was threatened with a departmental enquiry for his wilful absence from duty. Confronted with that threat, he submitted his resignation, a copy of which is found at annexure A. This resignation was addressed to the General Manager (Works), Himachal Government Transport, Simla.

(3.) The resignation submitted by the petitioner, however, was not accepted forthwith. On the other hand the Deputy General Manager (Works) acting for Commissioner Transport, respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 13 -10 -1972, copy found at annexure C informed the petitioner that his resignation would be considered only after a decision was taken on his wilful absence from duty. In the same letter it had been conveyed to the petitioner that his joining report for 8 -9 -1972 could not be accepted unless medical and fitness certificates from Government Medical Attendant were produced by him. It was also made clear that the said communication was without prejudice to action for wilful absence.